I call bullshit!

Via Uppity Woman, here is rabid Obot and Buffoon Juice alumni “Angry Black Lady” (aka Imani Gandy):

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer Signs Legislation Permitting Employers to Interrogate Female Employees About Contraception Use

A month or so ago, I wrote about a bill in Arizona (HB 2625) that would permit employers to opt-out of the so-called birth control mandate and interrogate their female employees about their sexual practices, all in the name of “religious freedom”:

You see, if a female employee seeks a medical prescription for contraception, an employer will be permitted to ask that employee for proof that she doesn’t plan to use the contraception for slutty fuck-making. Using it for medical reasons is ok — that’s medicine.

So, if you’re one of those women who uses slutpills for non-slutty reasons, then you’re ok. You’ll get to keep your job. Enjoy your ovarian cancer or your acne or whatever, but make sure you put that red cover on your TPS reports or the boss’ll have your head.


Whelp, guess what campers? Jan Brewer just signed this monstrosity into law yesterday. In fact, the version which she signed is actually worse than the originally-introduced version. The amended version attempts to address the concerns that the bill violates a woman’s privacy by off-handedly stating that the bill does not authorize the “religiously-affiliated employer” to obtain an employee’s protected health information or to violate HIPAA.


Wow, that sounds really bad. Here is the news article she linked to:

Brewer signs controversial contraception bill into law

Governor Jan Brewer signed House Bill 2625 into law Friday. The legislation authorizes religiously-affiliated employers to deny contraceptive services from their employees’ health insurance plans.

Despite opponents saying the bill would violate a woman’s right to privacy, proponents say it will apply exclusively to those entities whose religious beliefs are central to their operating principles, and for whom providing coverage for contraception could pose a moral conflict or religious objection.

“In its final form, this bill is about nothing more than preserving the religious freedom to which we are all Constitutionally-entitled,” said Brewer. “Mandating that a religious institution provide a service in direct contradiction with its faith would represent an obvious encroachment upon the 1st Amendment.”

Currently, state law allows a narrow scope of nonprofit, faith-based institutions to opt out of contraceptive coverage, provided that the institution primarily employs and serves individuals who share the religious tenets of the institution.

According to the press release from Brewer’s office, HB 2625 moderately expands the definition of a “religiously-affiliated employer” to include any organization whose articles of incorporation explicitly state a religiously-motivated purpose, and whose religious beliefs play a fundamental role in its function. It is anticipated that there are few employers who will qualify for this exemption under the bill.

I don’t know about you, but I never had to get my employer’s permission to go to a doctor. I might have to ask for time off but I never had to explain what I was being treated for.

In my experience the treatment information would be provided to the health insurance company by the doctor to verify that the treatment was covered by the plan. Regardless of whether it was approved or rejected I’ve never heard of that information being directly given (or transferred) to an employer.

An employer has no right to review your medical files unless you are filing some health-related claim against them. Your boss does not review and approve/deny your medical claims. So unless you are claiming it happened at the office Christmas party your supervisor will never know you got an STD.

I am not saying that this Arizona bill is a good thing. Contraception should be covered by all health insurance plans.

I’m just saying that Angry Black Lady is full of shit.

This entry was posted in Disingenuous Democrats, Media Zombies, Obamacare, Politics and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to I call bullshit!

  1. elliesmom says:

    She’s a lot like Angry Black Guy.

  2. yttik says:

    It sounds like exaggeration and political hype, but in the recent past women have been subjected to invasive medical exams as a condition of employment and our sexual histories have been used against us. For example, some women who worked as coal miners were forced to have pelvic exams to prove to their employers that they were not pregnant and were “free of disease”. So there is a precedent for this kind of paranoia. Women’s medical histories have been given to employers in the past and those employers have been able to use it against people. But this is 2012, women make up more than half the workforce and it’s unlikely employers would want to review all that medical info and abuse women with it.

  3. myiq2xu says:

    McNorman says I am wrong.

    Unfortunately myiq2xu a third party administrator can tell your employer what you are being treated for. Companies who are self funded and use a third party administrator do not ever lose that right to know what they are paying for. When a person has a “medical necessity” issue and it is considered not medically necessary by the administrator’s guidelines, the employee is usually given the option of appealing. That appeal might be something that goes before a group comprised from the employer and an administrator rep. Yes, they are given all the details. Pics included as well.


    If they are self insured and using BXBS, they never lose that option. The administrator can be Aetna, Cigna or any other large insurance company administering the policy. The changes that are being made are constantly changing. As for an insurer telling your boss what you have been doing, they have other ways to figure it out. At the end of the year, the insurer goes back to the table and tells them that X,Y and Z have now upped their premiums. Then the employer has the right to go back through all of the costs to see what’s up. It is indirect knowledge for now. It really depends on the company size. The Human Resource person at the top knows a lot.

    It’s not like the old days Upps. If someone wants to find something out, there is always a loophole somewhere. Electronic medical records will ensure that there is no more privacy. The only way that I see anything staying private is if everything is paid in cash and under an alias. It’s coming to that.

    But the new AZ law would not affect that – if your boss can already access all your medical records you have no privacy anyway.

    • wmcb says:

      Oh, bull. My husband is a doc, and we did pre-certs for medicines and procedures all the time. We also had our own employees whom we insured, and trust me, HIPPA laws don’t allow employers to just go snooping through medical records willy nilly. The data that gets sent from the insurance company re: expenses and claims and stuff is data without identifiers. You know the stats, but don’t know who it is.

      • jeffhas says:

        Doesn’t an employer open itself up to all sorts of lawsuits (Civil and Criminal) if they disclose private medical records?

        I mean maybe the HR person at the top knows a lot, but if they speak they’ll have the pants sued off of ’em….? and if you’re fired, you would sue for all sorts of damages…?

      • wmcb says:

        Yes, jefhas. HIPPA laws are very strict. I know – I used to teach all the HIPPA compliance stuff. As I said below, the rare exception would be an employer who basically IS the insurance company as well as the employer, and those are very very few.

        • jeffhas says:

          Seems to me, even in that case, the company opens itself up…

          I know I’m probably in the minority – but I would totally like to win the Lawsuit Lottery over my slutty behavior

    • wmcb says:

      Oh, and even if there is a rare case, with a self-insured company, one that basically runs their own in-house insurance company and thus is the payor as well as the employer, why is birth control so special?. In that case, the employer (who is also insurer) gets to know who is being treated for HIV, who is getting Viagra, and who has hemorrhoids. They get to know that your kid had scabies and head lice. If that’s how it works, that’s how it works. They are paying. And, as you said, that’s an argument for severing insurance and employment – there is nothing unique about BCP’s in that situation. There are all kinds of embarrassing things your employer would know.

      So now we have a tiny minority of religious employers who would qualify for the objection, and within that an even teeny tinier subset who are self insurers. Who might or might not be privy to whether a woman is taking pills for a medical reason, or for birth control. And this is the end of the world?

  4. wmcb says:

    Yep. A friend on facebook posted a hair-on-fire piece about this bill, and the comments were full of people going “ZOMG! A bill that allows any employer to grill you about your sex life!!!!! Your boss gets to investigate your level of slut slut sluttiness! And maybe he can fire you if you are not chaste enough”.

    I replied that there is a good argument to be had on whether religious employers who object should be still be made to purchase insurance that covers birth control. So make that argument.

    The only thing this bill does is allow the health insurance of religiously objecting employers to treat BCP’s as an elective medication, not a medically necessary one. There is a carve out for pills for medical use like ovarian cysts and or heavy periods.

    It’s not any different, in concept, than retin-A being covered for severe acne, but not covered for wrinkles. One is considered a medically necessary use, the other an elective use. Your employer has nothing to do with that decision – your DOCTOR has to call the insurance company and verify it’s being prescribed for the medical purpose, and get it approved by your insurance.

    I personally don’t have a huge problem with this. On the other hand, I can fully understand why some women do. But my biggest concern is a) stop being hysterical and making it out to be something it’s not, and b) Is “religious employers MUST pay for my birth control, or we are all dooooooomed!” really the hill feminists want to die on? Really? We are talking about a really tiny minority of employers who will be allowed to opt out of paying for birth control. I’m sorry, but going around behaving as if that’s the most horrendously oppressive, practically Nazi-like thing to ever happen to the female gender comes across to the average person as ludicrous.

    • elliesmom says:

      Yup. A month’s prescription for BCPs costs less than the co-pay I pay on my other prescriptions. I surprised my friendly pharmacist when I asked what BCPs would cost me, but he gladly looked up the prices for the most commonly prescribed ones for me.

      • wmcb says:

        Yes. And we are, by definition here, talking about very small minority employed women in religious institutions. Who likely grab a couple of lattes or some burgers in the course of the month. Three venti lattes would cover the cost of most birth control pills.

        Again I ask: Is this really the thing you want to portray as the most oppressively sexist horrible unfair thing in the whole universe? That for a tiny minority of women, what can be reasonably construed as an elective medication would have to be paid for out of pocket? That’s your huge cause for “justice”?

        And they wonder why most of America laughs at “feminists”.

  5. jeffhas says:

    “Angry Black Lady is full of shit”

    Sky is Blue…. Earth is Round… Obama’s a D*ck… yaaaawn….

  6. DeniseVB says:

    I remember the brouhaha over pharmacists not even dispensing BC because of religious reasons. So, why not just change pharmacies?

    • wmcb says:

      That one is a much bigger problem. I say the pharmacist can change jobs. If you don’t want to fulfill the requirements of the job because of religious objections, then don’t choose that job. I say the same thing about a Muslim who takes a job at Wendy’s and then wants to be exempt from serving the bacon cheeseburgers. Nope. Think bacon is unclean? Don’t work somewhere they serve bacon.

      A religious institution should not be forced to do things against their tenets. But neither should a secular employer be forced to make exceptions for religious tenets.

  7. wmcb says:

    Personally, I have to wonder about any woman who would voluntarily go to work for an openly religious organization, whose sole purpose is to promote their religious views, then bitch and moan about those beliefs. To me it’s like a Muslim going to work for a hog butcher, then having a hissy fit that he has to touch pork.

    Don’t want this bill to apply to you? Don’t go work for a Catholic charity organization.

    • yttik says:

      Yes, I don’t get that. If you don’t agree with religious views, then you probably shouldn’t go to work for a Catholic org that has the stated purpose of promoting those views. If you’re against pork, then don’t work for a pork butcher.

      Actually, I don’t understand the entire debate. When I had insurance, I had to pay for my own antibiotics. Why do I need to have BC pills for free? Most people have to pay for many of their prescriptions.

    • 1539days says:

      Like a woman who goes to a Catholic Law school then makes a federal case about them not offering BC in their health plan?

  8. DandyTiger says:

    OT: This is for the Dell (and Microsoft) fans out there (not really). Here’s what happens at a Dell/Microsoft sponsored meeting:

    So here I am at Dell’s huge and very professional summit with founder Michael Dell, top people from Microsoft and Intel, impressive power points, expensive commercials, matching polyester ties and all that jazz, and then the – by Dell chosen – moderator starts to rejoice the lack of women in the room. “The IT business is one of the last frontiers that manages to keep women out. The quota of women to men in your business is sound and healthy” he says. “What are you actually doing here?” he adds to the few women who are actually present in the room.

    Dell’s moderator continues talking about his two Rolex watches and he then presents the next speaker from Intel. After the break Mads Christensen shares with us his whole “show” about the bitchy women who want to steal the power in politics, boards and the home. “Science” he calls it and mentions that all the great inventions come from men. “We can thank women for the rolling pin,” he adds. And then the moderator of the day finishes of by asking all (men) in the room to promise him that they will go home and say, “shut up bitch!”.

    I turn pale. Not because I am personally offended. I know Mads Christensen and what he stands for and I don’t usually pay much attention to what he says. I am pale because I am in a state of shock realizing that a large professional company as Dell will conciously hire someone with the well known agenda Mads Christensen has.

    Now you know why all those Dell commercials always said “Dude, you’re getting a Dell”.

Comments are closed.